Document

Document

The California Coastal Commission officially notified the Navy Monday that its downtown San Diego waterfront redevelopment plans are "no longer consistent" with state law.

In a letter to Capt. Mark K. Rich, chief of staff to the commandant for the Navy's southwest region, Mark Delaplaine, manager of the commissions' federal consistency division, said the Navy needs to submit a "supplemental consistency determination" and subject itself to "supplemental coordination."

The letter followed the commission's unanimous vote Friday on findings backing the view of the project -- an office-hotel-retail development by Navy lessee and developer Doug Manchester for the eight blocks between Pacific Highway and Harbor Drive and south of Broadway.

The property was donated by San Diego voters to the Navy in 1920 for a supply center and currently is headquarters to the Navy. Manchester has a 99-year lease from the Navy to develop the property in exchange for building the Navy a new headquarters building on the site.

Delaplaine, in summarizing the commission's findings, said the Navy's plans, submitted in 1990 long before Manchester was involved, will result in impacts "substantially different" from what was predicted. The subsequent effects would now be "no longer consistent to the maximum extent practicable" with the state's coastal management program.

Delaplaine said he will now await a reply from the Navy to see whether or not meetings between the two agencies can produce an acceptable compromise or require court action.

Before the commission vote, Manchester's attorney, Steven M. Strauss, accused the commission of an "abuse of discretion" and trying "to assert power" over the Manchester project, called Manchester Pacific Gateway.

In a letter to the commission, Strauss said the commission's revised findings "far exceed the commission's authority" as laid out in federal law and "constitute an abuse of discretion."

The findings "make clear the commission's intent to overreach and its attempt to assert power over development on federal lands that it simply does not have," Strauss said.

The Navy in a separate letter reiterated its view that conditions have not changed since 1990 and thus no new consistency determination is needed.

"There have been no substantial changes to the activity that are relevant to management program enforceable policies," Capt. Rich wrote.

Strauss in his letter argued that all the changes in the last 20 years have taken the buildout of the project into account when analyzing traffic and other impacts.

Delaplaine said he considers Strauss' view "hyperbole."

"We will not respond to the letter from Manchester - we're working with the Navy," he said. "He's free to weigh in at any point."

Delaplaine said there is no deadline for action but that the commission would have to assert its views at some point or a court may find later that it acted too late.

Meanwhile, he acknowledged, Dealy is working with local coastal staff to try to work out a compromise and avoid further court action. The commission had earlier sued the Navy and withdrew its appeal and instead reopen the consistency question.